Plaintiff,
currently an inmate at Autry State Prison in Pelham, Georgia,
submitted a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
contesting certain conditions of his confinement while
incarcerated at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls,
Georgia. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed and was granted a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
(Docs. 2, 4.) For the reasons set forth below, I
RECOMMEND that the Court
DISMISS Plaintiff's supervisory claims
against Defendant Hilton Hall, and DENY
Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
However, Plaintiff's allegations arguably state a
colorable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Defendant Tam and a colorable
First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Hall;
these claims shall proceed. Accordingly, the Court
DIRECTS the United States Marshal to serve
Defendants with a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint and this
Order.

On May
6, 2016, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Plaintiff was assaulted
by another inmate at Coffee Correctional Facility in the Unit
4 dorm, breaking his jaw in two places. (Doc. 1, p. 5.)
Plaintiff was not allowed medical care until the following
day at 10:30 a.m., whereupon Defendant Dr. Andrew Tam
diagnosed Plaintiff with a broken jaw and determined he would
need outside surgery. (Id.) Plaintiff was taken to
the Mayo Clinic in Waycross, Georgia, that same day, May 7,
2016, but did not have his jaw wired because there was no
available oral surgeon. (Id. at p. 6.) Upon return
to Coffee Correctional, Plaintiff was placed in the medical
unit where he was not given any medication for several days
as he awaited an available medical professional. On May 10,
2016, Dr. Mosely wired Plaintiff's jaw shut at an
off-site facility. After surgery, Plaintiff was placed back
in the medical unit, still without any medication for pain or
swelling. Defendant Tam informed Plaintiff that he would need
to remain in the medical unit for up to six weeks while he
recovered, but on May 12, 2016, Defendant Tam discharged
Plaintiff due to needed cell space. Plaintiff requested
protective custody but was denied.

On May
18, 2016, Plaintiff was again assaulted by numerous inmates
in the Unit 4 dorm, breaking Plaintiff's jaw a second
time. During this assault, Plaintiff was stabbed multiple
times, had his knee dislocated, and his toe cut. Plaintiff
was taken to medical where he remained for over three weeks
until he could walk on his own. (Id.) Plaintiff was
then placed in segregation where he filed a grievance
regarding his medical care. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)
Plaintiff's grievance allegedly caused a retaliatory
transfer to another institution on June 17, 2016, before his
jaw had sufficient time to heal. (Id.) The doctor at
Plaintiff's new institution improperly removed the wires
in Plaintiff's jaw and now Plaintiff suffers
“excruciating” pain when he talks. (Id.
at p. 7.) Plaintiff argues Defendant Tam violated his rights
by discharging him from the medical unit before his jaw could
heal and subjecting him to subsequent harm, despite
Plaintiff's security classification and Defendant
Tam's knowledge that Plaintiff needed more time to heal.
(Id.) As relief for these alleged constitutional
violations, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages
and any other relief to which he is entitled. (Id.
at p. 8.)

STANDARD
OF REVIEW

Plaintiff
brings this action in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Docs. 2, 4.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),
the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without
the prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit
that includes a statement of all of his assets and shows an
inability to pay the filing fee and also includes a statement
of the nature of the action which shows that he is entitled
to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court
must dismiss the action if it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Additionally,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a
complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity. Upon such screening, the Court must
dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or which seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).

When
reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court is guided by the instructions
for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (“A pleading
that states a claim for relief must contain [among other
things] . . . a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in
numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of
circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if it is ‘without arguable
merit either in law or fact.'” Napier v.
Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.
2001)).

Whether
a complaint fails to state a claim under Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 Fed.Appx. 675, 678
(11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Under that standard, this
Court must determine whether the complaint contains
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert “more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not” suffice.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also
“accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a
claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but
also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”
Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

In its
analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle
that the pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a
less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and,
therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v.
Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006)
(“Pro se pleadings are held to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys . . .
.”) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff's
unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding
procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106, 113 (1993) (“We have never suggested that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel.”). The requisite review of
Plaintiff's Complaint raises several doctrines of law,
which the Court discusses as follows.

DISCUSSION

I.
Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
Claims

The
cruel and unusual punishment standard of the Eighth Amendment
requires prison officials to “ensure that inmates
receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical
care.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
(1994). In the medical care context, the standard for cruel
and unusual punishment, embodied in the principles expressed
in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976), is
whether a prison official exhibits a deliberate indifference
to the serious medical needs of an inmate. Farmer,
511 U.S. at 828. However, “not every claim by a
prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment
states a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Harris
v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991)
(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105). Rather,
“an inmate must allege acts or omissions sufficiently
harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs.” Hill v. DeKalb Reg'l Youth Det.
Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 1994).

Thus,
in order to prove a deliberate indifference to medical care
claim, a prisoner must: (1) “satisfy the objective
component by showing that [he] had a serious medical
need”; (2) “satisfy the subjective component by
showing that the prison official acted with deliberate
indifference to [his] serious medical need”; and (3)
“show that the injury was caused by the defendant's
wrongful conduct.” Goebert v. Lee County, 510
F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007). As to the first component,
a medical need is serious if it “‘has been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or [is] one
that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily
recognize the necessity for a doctor's
attention.'” Id. (quoting Hill,
40 F.3d at 1187). Under the second, subjective component, the
Eleventh Circuit has consistently required that “a
defendant know of and disregard an excessive risk to an
inmate's health and safety.” Haney v. City of
Cumming, 69 F.3d 1098, 1102 (11th Cir. 1995). Thus, the
subjective component requires an inmate to prove: “(1)
subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard
of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than mere
negligence.” Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207,
1223 (11th Cir. 2016).[2]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&ldquo;Conduct
that is more than mere negligence includes: (1) grossly
inadequate care; (2) a decision to take an easier but less
efficacious course of treatment; and (3) medical care that is
so cursory as to amount to no treatment at all.&rdquo;
Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1176 (11th Cir.
2011). Additionally, a defendant who “delays necessary
treatment for non-medical reasons” or “knowingly
interfere[s] ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.